Monday, 16 May 2011

So You Think You're a Skeptic?

Back in January 2011
we had a very lively meeting when Steve Fuller came to talk to us and
covered the topic "If
You're Pro-Science, What are you Pro?"
He is best known for his defence of the creationist stance and it was
an interesting night and lead to lots of discussion. I thought our guest
made some good points, but his opening move caused a whole lot of muttering
under our breaths and whispered accusations that our guest was setting
up straw men in an attempt to make it easier to defend his point of
view.

His opening remarks did
temporally confuse the audience, you see he made the heretical claim
that we weren’t real Sceptics and if I was living in ancient Ionia
he would have been right, but it got me thinking which is always the
point of a Skeptics meeting. He said, and I paraphrase from my biased
memory, that a Sceptic was Sceptical about everything and therefore
could make no definite decisions about the nature of anything. A true
Sceptic by definition can have no opinion on anything.

Ancient Sceptics a
Potted and Incomplete History

The history of Ancient
Scepticism is an interesting one and includes amongst other things a
man scared of dogs, a one eyed dancer, a happy pig and some very worried
theistic philosophers and, like everything of any worth in Western Civilisation,
it was invented bythe Ancient Greeks.

Now a bit like us, some
of them got together (sorry no women, you're locked in the house, your
job is to knock out male sprogs and keep your mouth shut). They began
to question the nature of everything from social customs to the purpose
of religion, the organization of the state and the very make up of the
universe and amongst these revolutionary thinkers were the first Sceptics.

The first official Sceptic
in the history books was Pyrrho
of Elis 360-262. He taught that we can never know the reality
of something, only how it appears to us, and that each person will
perceive the world in their own way. Pyrrho never wrote anything
down but we know what he taught from his pupil, the one eyed dancer,
called Timon, (“Cyclops” to his mates).

Bitter or Sweet?

The Sceptics were concerned
about the problems of perception – how do you know what you perceive
is actually true. If everybody’s perception of the same object is
different, which is true, are any perceptions true? An ancient example
asks why honey tastes sweet to the healthy but bitter to the sick?
The ancient Sceptic would argue that we don’t know if it is sweet
or bitter, are never certain of its nature and the wise person must
therefore withhold judgement. We can never be sure
if something is sweet or bitter, beautiful or ugly, moral or immoral
or if it even exists. We can never be sure about the nature of anything
so it is best to keep a calm demeanour and react as little as possible
to what may or may not be happening to us.

Happy Pigs and Angry
Dogs

Cyclops as you may expect
was a true believer and said of Pyrrho, “Truly no other mortal can
rival Pyrrho”. Pyrrho tried to live his philosophy and maintain a
tranquil manner at all times, although not always with success. This
is where the animals come in. Cyclops tells us a story that Pyrrho was
on a ship during a very bad storm; the passengers were getting panicky,
Pyrrho rebuked them and told them to learn from a pig that was on board.
The pig was tranquilly eating its meal and totally ignoring the storm.
On another occasion he was bitten by a dog and for a moment as you would
expect he was scared and upset. He turned to his companions and apologised
saying “it was difficult to stop oneself of being human”.

The aim of the ancient
Sceptic was tranquillity of mind. This was not just clever intellectual
debate but a way of life and his philosophy was taken up by many as
the answer and the only honest way to face up to our existence.
The Sceptic can know nothing about death, the soul, heaven or hell,
he is open to all arguments but cannot choose and so must practice silence.

The Sandwich Problem

This all sounds very
noble and philosophical but what happened when Pyrrho was hungry and
fancied a cheese sandwich. Did he sit there and ask himself if he was
hungry, then not make a decision and starve to death? Well obviously
not. It seems there were exceptions. For practical purposes the Sceptic
could use custom, state law, and tradition as a guide for day to day
living but the Sceptic is always aware that his sandwich may not be
a sandwich and may not be cheese. “Cop out”, I hear you cry.

The Modern Sceptic

The Sceptic in modern
times is a much more opinionated and noisy figure. That most humane
and human philosopher Montaigne (1533-92) was influenced by many of the classical
thinkers but declared that the Sceptics like Pyrrho “were the wisest
party of Philosophy” and it was from his study of Sceptical philosophy
that he acquired the question that underlies the basis of his thoughts
- What do I know?

Friedrich
Nietzsche (1844-1900) the
Greek scholar and radical philosopher was mightily unimpressed
by the classical Sceptics way of thinking. In his classic work Beyond
good and Evil he mocks these ancient Sceptics and paints a picture
of them arguing over whether a door is open or closed or even there
at all. As you would expect he rejects their philosophy with rigour.
To philosophers such as Kant
(1724-1804) and Descartes 1596-1650 Scepticism is a dangerous fundamental threat.
If nothing is knowable, if no decision can be made, how can we know
god or the soul or salvation?

So what is a modern Skeptic?
I could pop over to Wikipedia and tell you, but I'll give you my definition.
A Skeptic starts out like Pyrrho and hears all the arguments, evaluates
evidence, is aware that our senses are unreliable, our memories, our
vision can trick us but unlike Pyrrho we make a decision on the
probability that the evidence we have seen is true. A true Skeptic
must always be open to questioning every fundamental belief he or she
has. Nothing is sacred and there are no
special exceptions.

Skeptical thinking has
the power to transform not just the individual but the entire world,
it is the most powerful and dangerous of philosophies. A Skeptic must
always ask that most dangerous of questions – why?

Carl
Sagan 1934-1996 wrote “If
Skeptical habits of thought are widely distributed and prized, then
who is the Skepticism going to be mainly applied to? To those in power.
Those in power, therefore, do not have a vested interest in everybody
being able to ask searching questions"

It is our duty to ask
those questions, I would say it’s a moral obligation to question,
to examine, to probe. So what do you know? Is the honey sweet
or bitter and if so Why?

References:

The
Book of Dead Philosophers:
By Simon CritchleyThis is a wonderful
book full of fascinating stories and ideas, great for anybody looking
for an easy way into the history of philosophy. The stories about the
dog and pig come from here. This was the source for many of the modern
philosophers' reaction to ancient Sceptics.

1 comment:

I wanted to comment on this yesterday, but had to go to the Cardiff Skeptics meetup and so wasn't near a PC.

The article is interesting, and any discussion of the historical aspects of skepticism are welcome. However, I feel the comparison of philosophical skepticism (what you call "classical" skepticism) with the modern meaning of skepticism is like comparing apples and oranges.

Philosophical skepticism is an interesting epistemological critique which is just as relevant now as it was back in the times of the Ancient Greeks. It may actually be even more relevant now when we consider its implications on inductive reasoning and therefore the scientific method. Modern skepticism accepts certain axioms which place its roots in empiricism and naturalism more so than philosophical skepticism. They are both skepticism of some "sort" but, in a way, are actually in conflict because a modern skeptic would argue that science or methodological naturalism can lead to knowledge, whereas a philosophical skeptic would doubt the very assumptions that those methods are founded upon. That's not to say that a modern skeptic does not ponder questions of epistemology, just that when defending our skeptical position we argue using science.

Birmingham Skeptics in the Pub meet on the second Wednesday of the month for a speaker. We will often meet at other times too for extra talks, socials and events. Follow our social media or go to our .org site to make sure you know what's happening.